• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): Conspiracy Theories & Claims

I dunno. What does a bio-engineered plague look like? What aspects of a virus would be tells that it was genetically sequenced in a lab?

I mean really, how many artificially created diseases are there to use as comparative samples?

Sorry, just getting back to this now.
A bio-engineered plague is one that generally shows signs of manipulation. So, for example, back before international treaties forbade such actions, an infectious agent could be made more transmissible by turning it into an aerosol, or developing a strain to make it more efficacious with certain species etc. All of these kinds of manipulations generally show in the genetic and chemical make up of a virus or bacterium. Just like a new strain will show a descendant line from a previous iteration, so too will a developed version show its origins.

Where those origins have been manipulated artificially it will show up as shortened time lines or dramatic jumps in characteristics, without intervening generations to show the natural development.

So too will genetic manipulation leave indicators. If techniques such as CRISPR are used, there are usually markers left where normal patterns of known families have sudden interjections of alternative codes.

With COVID-19, the emergence of the UK, South African and Brazillian strains are, so far, consistent with what would have been expected over the time period and the range and extent of infection, again, strongly supporting a natural origin.

COVID-19 is a new virus, but it is not from a new family, and thus, there is actually quite a bit of history and context to understand how it would run out in the population. As such, there are reasonable models for it, and it has, thus far, not done anything so unusual as to mark it out as radically different to many of its previously known stable mates.

Ergo, as it has not done anything terribly unexpected, has mutated at fairly expected rates and has been studied by so many different, independent, and often adversarial, groups, if there were any indications of either artificial sources or manipulation, we would have known about it by now.

However, as has been shown with Ebola Zaire, and a few others, just because it is well studied and well understood, does not mean we will ever find out the reservoir source - ie, the animal or organism in which it lives without infecting the host. That may remain elusive.
 
I have to wonder if there is some sort of disinformation at work here. Why? because of the way I keep seeing this "Flat Earther" thing get tossed out as a way to discredit people. It doesn't even have anything to do with the reason why someone is being discredited. It's thrown in as a way to make people not question whether the discrediting is valid. It's like an internet version of "she's a witch! burn her!" Then comes the digital equivalent of a lynch mob.

That sadly seems to be the way of the world nowadays. No distinction between people with reasonable questions and concerns, and people who really do have some 'way out' theories. No attempt to investigate whether what someone is saying may have some basis in truth, just throw insults at them instead (or try to censor them).

It's been happening for a while, but seems especially prominent with the covid-19 thing.
 
Well, there is some basis for comparison. The Nazis typically lied to prisoners about what they were being injected with. Do we trust the people distributing the vaccine to be truthful and honest?

There's a difference. The Nazi's perpetrated genocide on several groups of people as they had a financial and ideological agenda to do so. They thought they would gain from it.

Turning every pharmacological company towards finding effective vaccines to combat a sudden onset pandemic seems pretty wise.

Killing your own population that makes you money does not seem like a very good business model particularly if you are seen to be pretty incompetent in handling the pandemic in the first place.

Also, the tens of thousands of people who work for pharmacological companies and I've known a fair few in all different aspects over the years generally don't have some sort of Nazi agenda from what I could see.

I thought the comment from Jo Stevens was quite correct from the above Piers Corbyn article.

“Ensuring people feel safe taking the vaccine is literally a matter of life and death and if just one person is dissuaded from being vaccinated because of this it is one person too many.”
 
Last edited:
Well, there is some basis for comparison. The Nazis typically lied to prisoners about what they were being injected with. Do we trust the people distributing the vaccine to be truthful and honest?

Quite apart from the grotesquely offensive comparison of drawing parallels between one of history's most evil acts and a vaccination campaign for the benefit of humanity, Corbyn has been targeting the poorer areas of London with a disproportionate number of residents from immigrant backgrounds.
The statistics reveal that these are the very people most likely to be mistrustful of vaccinations.
How many BAME Londoners will now die because they swallowed Corbyn's propaganda?

corbyn.JPG


https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/new...-comparing-vaccines-to-holocaust/?cmpredirect
 
I have to wonder if there is some sort of disinformation at work here. Why? because of the way I keep seeing this "Flat Earther" thing get tossed out as a way to discredit people. It doesn't even have anything to do with the reason why someone is being discredited. It's thrown in as a way to make people not question whether the discrediting is valid. It's like an internet version of "she's a witch! burn her!" Then comes the digital equivalent of a lynch mo
I am not sure what you are referring to? @hunck was writing about the people who are hounding and harrassing this poor nurse and her family. They are the digital lynch mob in this case.
 
He was talking about the FBI and the pharmacist. I wondered the same myself.
 
This is just opinion, so please don't get upset.

An awful lot of the conspiracies seem to revolve around the idea that the crisis was deliberately managed by globalists and/or the elite to snuff out the privileges of those deluded people who imagined they lived in democracies and wanted decent employment rights. Or for said global elites to achieve something called the 'Great Reset', whatever that may be.

I have no doubt whatsoever that, conspiracy or not, there will be some people in those elites who will seize every opportunity offered by the crisis to further whatever is dear to them, whether it is simply making lots of money, acquiring/protecting power, etc. Generally you don't get to be part of the elite in the first place unless you are that sort of opportunist to a greater or lesser degree. I'm not saying they are all like that.

However, it seems to me that the lesson of the crisis is nearly the exact opposite. That the crisis became uncontrollable so rapidly precisely because we have a global economy which it is impossible to effectively lock down and which - because of the exposure of people to environmental microbiology to which they have no immunity, aids the migration of viruses from animals to humans. The same effect as the arrival of Europeans in the Americas 5 centuries ago, but on a global scale.

Therefore, we should be trying to switch back to localisation as far as possible, difficult though that would be. Not only would this address the issues above, not shipping vast amounts of stuff around the world surely would be greener than the current situation. It wouldn't stop us helping poor / starving countries, but the focus again would be on self-sufficiency rather than getting everyone in the world hooked on consumer goods - indeed we ourselves could do with overcoming our addiction to such stuff. Especially stuff that needs replacing every year or two.
 
the world hooked on consumer goods
It used to be that 'built to last' was seen as a positive thing. Well, it was a positive thing, and probably still is for the 'consumer'.
But not for the 'producer'. The producer wants to make things that last only just as long as necessary to prevent them getting a bad name for shoddy manufacturing and/or poor build quality, but not so long so as to prevent them selling more of a thing.
E.G. car makers. Take your average Ford Fruitcake, a new one is pretty much made to last 10 years. Any less and they would have to start covering things under warranty, and/or get a reputation for making cars that were pretty crappy (crappier). Any longer and it reduces the ongoing opportunity to flog more cars.
This is why car companies have a redesign of a model every 5 or 6 years, so that the model range is fresh for when people buy a new car.
And also why phone makers make phones that get new features added incrementally instead of all at the same time, so that newer phones can be bought more frequently.
 
"we have a global economy which it is impossible to effectively lock down "

That's a fair point. The oft-quoted example of New Zealand shows that small, remote, isolated countries, with a low population and population density can effectively be locked down, whereas a densely populated global transport and trade hub like the UK cannot.

"Especially stuff that needs replacing every year or two. "

The most egregious example has to be Premiership football shirts. Your £65 purchase turns into something embarrassingly obsolete within 12 months!
 
It used to be that 'built to last' was seen as a positive thing. Well, it was a positive thing, and probably still is for the 'consumer'.
But not for the 'producer'. The producer wants to make things that last only just as long as necessary to prevent them getting a bad name for shoddy manufacturing and/or poor build quality, but not so long so as to prevent them selling more of a thing.
E.G. car makers. Take your average Ford Fruitcake, a new one is pretty much made to last 10 years. Any less and they would have to start covering things under warranty, and/or get a reputation for making cars that were pretty crappy (crappier). Any longer and it reduces the ongoing opportunity to flog more cars.
This is why car companies have a redesign of a model every 5 or 6 years, so that the model range is fresh for when people buy a new car.
And also why phone makers make phones that get new features added incrementally instead of all at the same time, so that newer phones can be bought more frequently.

I "think" it was GM that sent researchers out to US scrapyards in the 70's looking to see what components on scrapped cars hadn't worn out. They would then target those parts and make them cheaper and need to be replaced in future. From memory, so no citatation and may be an urban legend, but wouldn't surprise me either.
 
I am not sure what you are referring to? @hunck was writing about the people who are hounding and harassing this poor nurse and her family. They are the digital lynch mob in this case.
Actually I was questioning if the people harassing her are being honest about WHY they're harassing her and used the other incident as an example of something else I've seen recently that feels like a propaganda stunt. Propaganda is often seen as lying about your enemy, but sometimes this is done by using agents who pretend to BE your enemy while speaking for them in order to discredit your enemy by misrepresenting them.

Of course the question becomes is why? What does anyone have to gain from this?
An awful lot of the conspiracies seem to revolve around the idea that the crisis was deliberately managed by globalists and/or the elite to snuff out the privileges of those deluded people who imagined they lived in democracies and wanted decent employment rights. Or for said global elites to achieve something called the 'Great Reset', whatever that may be.
No one I've heard talk about that had much idea what it is either. But the idea is that the elite few want to restructure the global economy in a massive and drastic way. Of course this is one of those where the details... are said to not exist yet since those in power haven't finalized the plan.
I have no doubt whatsoever that, conspiracy or not, there will be some people in those elites who will seize every opportunity offered by the crisis to further whatever is dear to them, whether it is simply making lots of money, acquiring/protecting power, etc. Generally you don't get to be part of the elite in the first place unless you are that sort of opportunist to a greater or lesser degree. I'm not saying they are all like that.
Pretty sure this has already happened. Lots of organizations have changed rules in ways they wouldn't have been able to before. Good/bad/other? Hard to say. The real question is which of them are reactions to an opportunity and which aren't.
However, it seems to me that the lesson of the crisis is nearly the exact opposite. That the crisis became uncontrollable so rapidly precisely because we have a global economy which it is impossible to effectively lock down and which - because of the exposure of people to environmental microbiology to which they have no immunity, aids the migration of viruses from animals to humans.
Heh, one analysis I read pointed out that the virus had already reached epidemic levels in multiple countries before it even had a name. In terms of being easily transmissible this is one of the worst. Most people have minor if any symptoms.
 
There's a difference. The Nazi's perpetrated genocide on several groups of people as they had a financial and ideological agenda to do so. They thought they would gain from it.
Yeah but the fake vaccines weren't directly part of the genocide. It wasn't a method of killing people directly. It was actually a wide variety of things. Sure some of them were controlled doses of various toxins as part of researching how those toxin worked... but some of them were other things, such as testing treatments for exotic diseases... by giving the subject the disease, then treatment. Not all of the people who were the experimental subjects died.
Turning every pharmacological company towards finding effective vaccines to combat a sudden onset pandemic seems pretty wise.

Killing your own population that makes you money does not seem like a very good business model particularly if you are seen to be pretty incompetent in handling the pandemic in the first place.
heh, the point of the comparison is to question if the "vaccine" works as advertised. Is there an ulterior motive for it?

What sort of motive could that be?

In at least one case, it's a form of vaccine that's never had large scale testing... and allegedly this was because prior to Covid-19 all of the small scale tests had failed. And now it's safe to inoculate everyone with? After only a few months to work on it? They did recycle most of the research data from their failed tests, so... it's not like they started from scratch.

Are any of them conventional vaccines?
Also, the tens of thousands of people who work for pharmacological companies and I've known a fair few in all different aspects over the years generally don't have some sort of Nazi agenda from what I could see.
Yeah... not a NAZI agenda.... but really that's not part of the question. the question is if they have an ulterior motive.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but the fake vaccines weren't directly part of the genocide. It was actually a wide variety of things. Sure some of them were controlled doses of various toxins as part of researching how those toxin worked... but some of them were other things, such as testing treatments for exotic diseases... by giving the subject the disease, then treatment. Not all of the people who were the experimental subjects died.
heh, the point of the comparison is to question if the "vaccine" works as advertised. Is there an ulterior motive for it?

What sort of motive could that be?

In at least one case, it's a form of vaccine that's never had large scale testing... and allegedly this was because prior to Covid-19 all of the small scale tests had failed. And now it's safe to inoculate everyone with? After only a few months to work on it? They did recycle most of the research data from their failed tests, so... it's not like they started from scratch.

Are any of them conventional vaccines?
Yeah... not a NAZI agenda.... but really that's not part of the question. the question is if they have an ulterior motive.

What are you on about?
 
What are you on about?
It's one of those things where you have a general feeling that there's something you NEED to know that people want to keep secret. But what? well it wouldn't be secret if you knew.

One "news" piece I read(which was obviously slanted at shaming anyone who doesn't want the vaccine) talked about how in one area a survey was done of medical personnel... and only 40% were wiling to take the vaccine(yes I know the article used a singular tense, and I don't know WHICH vaccine was being discussed, or even if it WAS a specific one). Then they decided that the best course of action was to make everyone sit through a lecture on how awesome the vaccine is.... after which 21% still didn't want it.

This wasn't a group decision, this was a group collectively going "no thank you" when presented the idea of a vaccine against a potentially deadly disease. When is the last time you've heard of THAT happening?

Speaking of deadliness.... A while back(I probably mentioned this before) I was curious so I looked up the CDC rules on the CDC website about how they count Covid-19 fatalities.... One way to look at it is that you can get listed if you're suspected of having the virus even though you died of something else.

The way it works is that the CDC collects two categories of deaths related to Covid-19. Those where it's listed on your death certificate as primary cause of death, and those where it's secondary. The secondary category is ostensibly things that exacerbated the primary cause of death in some way.... maybe... possibly... In practice it's partly speculative, though speculation from a medical professional. Technically this doesn't actually require you to get tested pre or post mortem if they don't have one available. If they think you probably had it(due to symptoms), you might get on the list. Or if you test positive for Covid-19 exposure and don't actually display symptoms. If the person writing your death certificate thinks it might have in some way contributed to your death, welcome to the Covid-19 statistics!

For the most part this makes sense. The rub is that they lump all of it together into a single number when publishing fatality statistics. Why? It feels dishonest, like they're trying to inflate the numbers.
 
Speaking of deadliness.... A while back(I probably mentioned this before) I was curious so I looked up the CDC rules on the CDC website about how they count Covid-19 fatalities.... One way to look at it is that you can get listed if you're suspected of having the virus even though you died of something else.
This is correct and can skew the evidence, for example, if you have been diagnosed with asymptomatic covid19 and you are run over by a car and killed, your death will go on the stats for a covid related death, im pretty sure these cases are a small minority of the statistics, but none the less do add to the figures.
 
This is correct and can skew the evidence, for example, if you have been diagnosed with asymptomatic covid19 and you are run over by a car and killed, your death will go on the stats for a covid related death, im pretty sure these cases are a small minority of the statistics, but none the less do add to the figures.
No, if you are run over by a bus that's the cause of death. (no municipality I know of has the resources to test every accident victim) If you have a fever and are coughing and are tested post-mortem and it's positive the assumption is covid. There are classifications before you get to the "yes-covid" checkbox. Ask any doctor, at least in the US. With more complexity, if you are being treated for cancer an take a sudden nose-drive and test positive post mortem, the doctor gets to make the decision on the check-box. And the group who provide mortality info to the CDC, an independent no-bid contract by the last administration, gets the information from the meta-data provided by the states. They don't see 400K death certificates.
 
No, if you are run over by a bus that's the cause of death. If you have a fever and are coughing and are tested post-mortem and it's positive the assumption is covid. There are classifications before you get to the "yes-covid" checkbox. Ask any doctor, at least in the US. With more complexity, if you are being treated for cancer an take a sudden nose-drive and test positive post mortem, the doctor gets to make the decision on the check-box. And the group who provide mortality info to the CDC, an independent no-bid contract by the last administration, gets the information from the meta-data provided by the states. They don't see 400K death certificates.
In the U.K. the figures reported are deaths from any cause of individuals who have tested positive within the previous 28 days.
 
In the U.K. the figures reported are deaths from any cause of individuals who have tested positive within the previous 28 days.
It's much harder to do that kind of analysis counter to good data analysis here because the central reporting entity has no control over the data it receives.
 
It's much harder to do that kind of analysis counter to good data analysis here because the central reporting entity has no control over the data it receives.
What @gordonrutter and myself are saying is, that if you are on record as being diagnosed with covid19, regardless of the severity (if any) of the symptoms, and are then subsequently killed or die of any cause, be that accident, murder, pre-existing medical condition etc, within 28 days of your positive covid19 test (all test results are kept centrally by the NHS in the UK), your death goes on to the statistic of a covid related deaths, its not right but as i said earlier, the cases where covid19 is not the actual cause of death are a small percentage of the total, but are none the less a percentage of the total.
 
Prehaps it would be more accurate if we could compare to the the average background mortality rate for the time of year.
 
What @gordonrutter and myself are saying is, that if you are on record as being diagnosed with covid19, regardless of the severity (if any) of the symptoms, and are then subsequently killed or die of any cause, be that accident, murder, pre-existing medical condition etc, within 28 days of your positive covid19 test (all test results are kept centrally by the NHS in the UK), your death goes on to the statistic of a covid related deaths, its not right but as i said earlier, the cases where covid19 is not the actual cause of death are a small percentage of the total, but are none the less a percentage of the total.
Yeah I get the UK system, which appears to have been designed by people without reasoning facility. Really? not very serious covid symptoms, tests positive but run over by a bus?
 
Yeah I get the UK system, which appears to have been designed by people without reasoning facility. Really? not very serious covid symptoms, tests positive but run over by a bus?
Yep goes down as a covid victim in the stats lol
 
Yeah I get the UK system, which appears to have been designed by people without reasoning facility. Really? not very serious covid symptoms, tests positive but run over by a bus?
I can only assume its down to the amout of time and effort it would take to sort through all the death certificates to sort out the ones who wete shot/run over/committed suicide etc from the ones that actually died as a direct result of covid, i cant imagine, as i said earlier, the the amount of people dying of 'other' causes, after being diagnosed with covid is a very large percentage of the total, probably under 1%
 
Not if you were to test everyone who gets admitted to hospital.
 
Back
Top